Maveric149 wrote:
Erik (Eloquence) wrote:
>Um, I'm not sure there even *is* a registered
>Wikipedia trademark, let alone in Russia.
>Until we have such a trademark, we can only
>ask them nicely to stop, but they're acting in full
>compliance with the law.
IIRC from my business law classes, registration is only
needed before seeking
actual legal action in court (just as with copyright infringement). But
"Wikipedia" is still a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. That's why
registered trademarks and plain old trademarks have different symbols to
represent them.
IIRC (but not from a bona fide business law class),
you must /use/ the symbol for a trade (or service) mark,
even though you don't have to register it, to defend it.
That is, you must put "TM" (or "SM") by your name to stake your
claim.
But you don't need the circled "R" -- and can't unless you register.
This is different from copyright law, where you need no circled "C".
IANAL but the ru.Wikipedia/Wikipedia.ru use does seem
to
cause a very real confusion as to what Russian "Wikipedia" is the actual one
that is part of the Wikimedia family.
I agree. But are we defeding the name properly?
It seems to me that we ought to stick up a "TM" (or "SM"?) posthaste!
IANAL either, so let's hope that Alex speaks up.
[If we let wikipedia.ru go by] - we will have lost
control of
our trademark and IIRC once that happens we will not be able to regain
control either legally or practically.
This is another difference from copyright law.
A trademark must constantly be defended or it goes away.
That's why there are "Webster's Dictionary"s all over the place,
but only one "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" (the descendant of the original);
they didn't defend "Webster's" for a while so lost the case when they
started.
I suppose that if we fail to defend "Wikimedia" from wikimedia.de,
then we'll lose the right to defend it from other random wikis;
but we won't lose the right to defend it from other /encyclopaedias/.
OTOH, since wikimedia.ru is a wiki encyclopaedia, it's all or nothing.
But here I'm thinking logically, rather than legally, to hypothesise;
so take it with a big grain of salt.
Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Corporation that sold a soft
drink
called "Coke" in red and white cans would clearly be guilty
of trademark infringement,
(You're missing "[A] company other than" at the beginning here.)
The advent of the Domain Name System has lead to
attempts
by trademark holders to take over domain names based on
trade mark rights. Unlike a trademark, which is restricted by
country and class of goods, domain names can be global and
not limited by goods or service.
So IMO we are on pretty solid legal grounds here even
without the last
paragraph (IMO, the last paragraph is a bit morally wrong and we shouldn't
approach this matter via that route unless forced to do so).
I agree. Remember when Prema Toys sued a 12-year-old kid named "Pokey"
over <pokey.org>? (They dropped legal action after bad publicity.)
-- Toby